Lewis Hyatt <lhy...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > ... >> > FWIW there are three other options currently affected by this change >> > (-Wimplicit-fallthrough, -fcf-protection, and -flive-patching). The change >> > for >> > -Wimplicit-fallthrough I think is particularly helpful: >> > >> > -Wimplicit-fallthrough Same as -Wimplicit-fallthrough=. Use the >> > latter option instead. >> > becomes >> > -Wimplicit-fallthrough Same as -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 (or, in >> > negated form, -Wimplicit-fallthrough=0). >> >> I also see: >> >> - -ftail-call-workaround Same as -ftail-call-workaround=. Use the >> latter option instead. >> + -ftail-call-workaround Same as -ftail-call-workaround=1 (or, in >> negated form, -ftail-call-workaround=0). >> -ftail-call-workaround=<0,2> Disallow tail call optimization when a >> calling routine may have omitted character lengths. >> ... >> --imacros Same as -imacros. Use the latter option >> instead. >> --imacros= Same as -imacros. Use the latter option >> instead. >> --include Same as -include. Use the latter option >> instead. >> - --include-barrier Same as -I. Use the latter option instead. >> + --include-barrier Same as -I-. >> --include-directory Same as -I. Use the latter option instead. >> --include-directory-after Same as -idirafter. Use the latter option >> instead. >> --include-directory-after= Same as -idirafter. Use the latter option >> instead. >> ... >> - -Wnormalized Same as -Wnormalized=. Use the latter option >> instead. >> + -Wnormalized Same as -Wnormalized=nfc (or, in negated >> form, -Wnormalized=none). >> -Wnormalized=[none|id|nfc|nfkc] Warn about non-normalized Unicode strings. >> >> I agree all of these look like improvements, especially the >> --include-barrier one. But I think the include ones also show >> that the "Use the latter option instead." decision is independent >> of whether the option is defined to be an alias.
Gah, I meant an Alias() with an argument here. >> >> FWIW, there's also: >> >> Wmissing-format-attribute >> C ObjC C++ ObjC++ Warning Alias(Wsuggest-attribute=format) >> ; >> >> which still ends up as: >> >> -Wmissing-format-attribute Same as -Wsuggest-attribute=format. Use the >> latter option instead. >> >> Not really my area though, so I don't have any specific suggestion >> about how to separate the cases. >> > > Right, sorry, in my first email I only mentioned the options output by > --help=common, but there were a few more as well. Thanks very much for trying > it out and for the feedback. > > The rule I implemented was to change the help output for all alias options > with no documentation if they also specify the extra 2nd option (or 2nd and > 3rd options) to the Alias directive. For example, -include-barrier is like > this: > > -include-barrier C ObjC C++ ObjC++ Alias(I, -) > > It serves to provide the argument '-' to the option '-I', so it is eligible > for > the new text. The others are like this one: > > -include-directory-after C ObjC C++ ObjC++ Separate Alias(idirafter) > MissingArgError(missing path after %qs) > > Since that one doesn't pass the extra args to Alias, I interpreted it to > mean this is the case for which the "Use the latter option" directive was > intended to apply. (-idirafter has been designated as preferable to > -include-directory-after). Yeah, I get why you did it like this. It's just that the end effect is to make --include-barrier seem less disparaged than the other --include-* options, but I'm not sure there's supposed to be any difference between them in that respect. Perhaps we should drop the "Use the latter option instead." thing altogether for aliases. I'm not sure that it really helps, and this thread shows that adding it automatically can lead to some odd corner cases. In practice we shouldn't remove any of these aliases unless we're also removing the option that they're an alias of. And if we do that, the options should go through the usual deprecation cycle, just like options without aliases. If there are specific options that we want to steer users away from without deprecation, then we should probably have a specific tag for that. Thanks, Richard
